I've always found the 400K a bit unlikely as cash up front. More realistic, it was one of those deals that we pay if certain targets are achieved, and I doubt dropping to Div 4 was one of them... although it might explain why Power masterminded it.

Sometimes you just have to take it on the chin. Vigs seems a disruptive influence and needs to go.

Sure, agree with all that. But whatever the actual amount paid, we did pay decent-ish money for a keeper in the expectation that we would be able to sell him on for more. Publicly putting him on the shit list radically reduces your chances of getting much back on him

They've both taken public something that should be being sorted out behind closed doors. Which means they're both painting themselves into a corner. In Flitcroft's case, that looks like poor man-management - if he wants rid of Vigoroux, fine, but at least try and get a fee for a player that cost us £400k, on the assumption that he would go on to be worth more.

Still struggling to find anywhere where the manager has said anything that shouldn't have been said

Sure, agree with all that. But whatever the actual amount paid, we did pay decent-ish money for a keeper in the expectation that we would be able to sell him on for more. Publicly putting him on the shit list radically reduces your chances of getting much back on him

This is exactly the point. Nobody is claiming that Vigoroux is squeaky clean and, if he has to go, then fine. But let's apply some subtlety to it. Dragging it all through the public, with a load of hissing and tutting on a weekly basis, is extremely poor management. It achieves nothing other than worsening the atmosphere and (possibly) leaving us stuck with him for the rest of the season.

Sure, agree with all that. But whatever the actual amount paid, we did pay decent-ish money for a keeper in the expectation that we would be able to sell him on for more. Publicly putting him on the shit list radically reduces your chances of getting much back on him

I said at the time, that investing in a keeper expecting a big sale was a bit strange given the market in keepers is different to that of outfield players.

Still struggling to find anywhere where the manager has said anything that shouldn't have been said

He's made it pretty clear in interviews that there's been a falling out with Vigoroux e.g. the comment after the Grimsby game that Vigs wasn't injured but that "something had gone on" during the warmup.

He's made it pretty clear in interviews that there's been a falling out with Vigoroux e.g. the comment after the Grimsby game that Vigs wasn't injured but that "something had gone on" during the warmup.

Yes, and even after the Coventry game the approach was poor.

We'll never know what happened post-full time, I'm sure he was in the wrong and was suspended as a result. The club should have just left it at that, but we had Flitcroft taking the moral high ground and banging on about how he was brought up to respect referees (when it suits him - it evidently didn't at Grimsby), blah blah.

But he had already selected him for the Cambridge game 4 days after the incident, before the suspension was applied. He must have seen or heard what went on, and if it was as disgraceful as he later tried to imply, then he should have chosen to leave him out of the side before he was forced to.

On one hand you can't have a policy of "all in it together/one for all" if some loose canon starts with the attitude. IF, and I mean if he' pulled out a game with an over exaggerated injury that's shit.

On the other we are shooting ourselves in the foot. He'll get a new club, they don't give a shit about attitude at first if the player has talent.